- UID
- 849027
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2013-1-15
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
沙发
楼主 |
发表于 2014-10-13 22:47:20
|
只看该作者
Part II: Speed Time2
Introduction:
Mutualism is the way two organisms of different species exist in a relationship in which each individual benefits. Similar interactions within a species are known as co-operation. Mutualism can be contrasted with interspecific competition, in which each species experiences reduced fitness, and exploitation, or parasitism, in which one species benefits at the expense of the other. Mutualism is a type of symbiosis. Symbiosis is a broad category, defined to include relationships that are mutualistic, parasitic, or commensal. Mutualism is only one type.
A well-known example of mutualism is the relationship between ungulates (such as Bovines) and bacteria within their intestines. The ungulates benefit from the cellulase produced by the bacteria, which facilitates digestion; the bacteria benefit from having a stable supply of nutrients in the host environment.
Mutualism plays a key part in ecology. For example, mutualistic interactions are vital for terrestrial ecosystem function as more than 48% of land plants rely on mycorrhizal relationships with fungi to provide them with inorganic compounds and trace elements. In addition, mutualism is thought to have driven the evolution of much of the biological diversity we see, such as flower forms (important for pollination mutualisms) and co-evolution between groups of species.However mutualism has historically received less attention than other interactions such as predation and parasitism.
Measuring the exact fitness benefit to the individuals in a mutualistic relationship is not always straightforward, particularly when the individuals can receive benefits from a variety of species, for example most plant-pollinator mutualisms. It is therefore common to categorise mutualisms according to the closeness of the association, using terms such as obligate and facultative. Defining "closeness," however, is also problematic. It can refer to mutual dependency (the species cannot live without one another) or the biological intimacy of the relationship in relation to physical closeness (e.g., one species living within the tissues of the other species).
The term "mutualism" was introduced by Pierre-Joseph van Beneden in 1876.[320 words]
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(biology)
Of Ants, Elephants and Acacias: A Tale of Ironic Interdependence
Without large grazing herbivores to eat them, acacia trees suffer because of a shift in the ant populations they house
January 10, 2008 |By David Biello
Time3
Acacia trees are the iconic shrub of the East African savanna. Their thorny thickets house a host of creatures and provide sustenance to the local charismatic megafauna, from elephants to zebras. In light of this continual foraging, the plants have struck a mutually beneficial bargain with several species of ants. The insect armies swarm intrusive browsers in exchange for housing and food. But according to new research in Science, it appears that without such browsing—a state of affairs the acacia might be thought to long for—the trees suffer.
Zoologist Todd Palmer and his colleagues examined the interdependence of one such acacia species—the whistling thorn tree, Acacia drepanolobium—the ants it hosts and the herbivores that eat it. He compared six such trees in Kenya that have been surrounded by an electrified fence since 1995 (by entomologist Truman Young of the University of California, Davis) with six trees open to local giraffes, elephants and other acacia-eaters.
In the absence of herbivores, the whistling acacia stopped producing little ant houses in hollow thorns—known as domatia—and excreting the sweet nectar that its bodyguard ants eat. But instead of spurring more growth, the acacias found themselves more than twice as likely to be providing a home to another type of ant—Crematogaster sjostedti—which do not defend the trees and rely on invasions of the bark-boring cerambycid beetle larvae to build the holes in which they dwell. "The cavity-nesting antagonistic ants actually promote the activities of the stem-boring beetle," says biologist Robert Pringle of Stanford University.
This, in turn, stunts the trees' growth and causes them to die twice as often than when they are being regularly eaten by giraffes, elephants and other large African herbivores. "The trees are actually making a shortsighted decision by defaulting on their end of the mutualism bargain," Pringle says. "If they sustained production of ant rewards in the absence of large mammals, they would reduce their probability of being taken over by this somewhat nasty antagonistic ant."[334 words]
Time4
This counterintuitive result may apply only to the whistling thorn acacia, one of the only species of that genus in Africa that relies on ants as bodyguards rather than thorns and / or chemical defenses. After all, in the wake of disappearing large mammals across Africa, these other types of acacia have proliferated, says ecologist Jacob Goheen of the University of British Columbia.
But it does provide an example of how the disappearance or extinction of elephants, giraffes, zebras and other large herbivores in a region can have unexpected and unintended consequences—much like the boom in leaf-eating beetles and the lizards that prey on them shown in earlier work—whereas the decline of such mammals continues nearly continent-wide through the loss of habitat and overhunting.
"Large herbivores are tremendously important players in these systems," Pringle says. "Not just because of the direct effects they have upon plants, but also because of the myriad effects they exert on smaller, less conspicuous components of biodiversity." For want of an elephant, a protective ant species diminished and left the whistling thorn acacia in dire straits.[183 words]
source:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/of-ants-elephants-and-acacias/
More Food from Fungi? Crop-Enhancing Microbes Challenge Genetic Engineering
Researchers investigate how fungi and other symbiotic microbes could improve plants
Apr 1, 2010 |By Michael Tennesen
Time5
To feed an exploding global population, scientists have called for a doubling of food production over the next 40 years. Genetic manipulation might seem the best way to quickly boost characteristics essential to plant growth and crop yields. New findings from different laboratories, however, suggest that fungi, bacteria and viruses could be an exciting alternative to increase agricultural productivity.
Scientists have long known that microbes can work symbiotically with plants. For instance, mycorrhizal fungi, which are associated with 90 percent of land plants, extend from roots to bring in moisture and minerals in exchange for plant carbohydrates. But microbes have recently been found among plant cells themselves and seem to confer benefits, such as more efficient photosynthesis and increased ability to fix nitrogen from the air. In fact, Mary E. Lucero, a biologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Jornada Experimental Range in Las Cruces, N.M., believes that plants actively recruit these microbes rather than simply being passive hosts for them.
In the lab, Lucero has given this recruitment a hand by transferring fungi from four-wing saltbush to grama grass, which is important for grazing cattle. The fungi-infused grass grew larger and produced more seed, probably by improving nutrient uptake and water usage, she speculates. Lucero also points out that harnessing microbial help for capturing nitrogen could reduce the need for chemical fertilizers. “It is far easier, more efficient and less expensive to inoculate a plant with a
beneficial fungi than to come up with a genetically modified species,” she remarks.
Rusty Rodriguez, a microbiologist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Biological Resources Division in Seattle, is trying to tackle another agricultural demon: excessive heat. In experiments to improve the ability of tomato plants to resist high temperatures, he inoculated them with fungi taken from plants near hot springs in Yellowstone National Park. The result: tomatoes that can grow at 148 degrees Fahrenheit. “That’s about the internal temperature of a medium cooked prime rib,” Rodriguez notes.[325 words]
Time6
Furthermore, by isolating a virus in the fungus, he discovered a three-way symbiosis that was required for thermal tolerance. “Without the virus the plants could handle only about 100 degrees F,” Rodriguez says. The fungus and virus also conveyed heat tolerance to rice and wheat, a process that could not only boost yields but also help crops fend off the effects of climate change.
Analyzing plants from beaches, deserts and polluted areas, Rodriguez has also isolated microbes that help plants resist salt, drought and heavy metals. Curiously, the same fungi taken from plants living in unstressed areas did not confer tolerance. “It has to be the right microbe from the right habitat,” Rodriguez says. Choosing microbes from heat-stressed areas could boost rice production, which drops 10 percent for every 1.8 degrees F of warming. Once acquired, however, stress-tolerant microbes can be passed in seed coatings to the plant’s progeny.
Christopher L. Schardl, a plant pathologist at the University of Kentucky who studies certain species of tall fescue grass, observes that the mutualism between microbes and plants has agricultural drawbacks, too. Many microbes in plants produce biologically active alkaloids, which repel insects, birds and herbivores. In fact, in the early 1950s grazing livestock picked up a disease related to alkaloids in grass known as fescue toxicosis. It can induce tremor and stupor, as well as an aversion to further grazing. “It costs the livestock industry about $1 billion a year,” says Schardl, adding that producers raising grass-fed cattle are now sowing cultivars with nontoxic fungi.
Identifying plant microbes is not easy, because microbial cells are embedded in plant tissue. Lucero uses scanning electron microscopy and new pyrosequencing techniques to identify the DNA of microbes in plant tissue.[286 words]
source:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-food-from-fungi/
|
|